You may download here a document written recently by Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo, faithful son of Archbishop Lefebvre, in which he makes it clear that we must not attend Novus Ordo, Indult, Sedevacantist, or Neo-SSPX Masses. Furthermore, no canonical agreement with Rome can be had until Rome converts back to the Catholic Faith.

Oh, how I wish that the three “Resistance” bishops, and the new one to come, would be so clear in their teachings regarding Mass attendance. One of these bishops, consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre’s own hands, even teaches that one may attend any of the above Masses if one feels attendance will bear fruit. What a shame!

Share this:

His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson made the following statement in Issue 505 (March 18, 2017 – Catholic Life?) of his Eleison Comments:

“…..in my opinion, be content to attend the least contaminated Tridentine Mass that there is anywhere near you,…..”

Since His Excellency does not qualify this statement, we may interpret it as meaning that one may go to a Tridentine Mass celebrated by priests of the neo-SSPX, Ecclesia Dei religious communities, diocese, or those priests who hold the Sedevacantist position. Is this an unfair interpretation? No. Most in the world of Catholic Tradition know by now that His Excellency has conceded that one may even actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances. Once one takes this position, he does not have a leg to stand on if he rejects attendance at a Tridentine Mass.

My friends, was this the spirit of the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre? Did he advise us to go to “the least contaminated Tridentine Mass”? Let us read the words of the Archbishop himself:

“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. ‘After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says’ – but THEY ARE BETRAYING US – betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.

“Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, ‘So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.’ But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that’s the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like Traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?

“This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who are very nice, very good people, all for the Society, who accepted the Consecrations, but who have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with, people who did not accept the Consecrations and who are now against us. ‘It’s a pity we are divided’, they say, ‘why not meet up with them? Let’s go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them’ – that’s a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds.”

Bishop Williamson’s position on this matter is clearly not in line with that of his spiritual father. Rather, with this position, and with many in the “Trad” world flocking to him, defending him, and/or being silent on the matter, Bishop Williamson seems to have become a de facto leader of tradecumenism. A true follower of the Archbishop will want no part in it.

On this Feast of the Annunciation, the 26th Anniversary of the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, let us pray that Bishop Williamson returns to the position of his spiritual father in all essential matters.

Share this:

Today is the fifth anniversary of that infamous sermon given by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota. The following is the quote that really caught my ear back then:

By these words Bishop Fellay publicly opposed the old SSPX adage of “no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution”. In other words, he publicly adopted a position in opposition to that of the SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who from the 1988 Consecrations onward clearly and firmly held the position that Rome must accept the pre-conciliar Magisterial teachings prior to the resumption of discussions regarding a canonical regularization. It is true that there were almost two years of doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX prior to this sermon, but the conclusion reached was that each party could not convince the other of its position.

My friends, does this make any sense? The SSPX starts the doctrinal discussions with Rome in 2009 with the position that the doctrinal differences between the two parties must be resolved prior to any canonical regularization. Then almost two years of discussions are held after which both parties cannot come to an agreement on the doctrinal discrepancies. Nonetheless, soon after Bishop Fellay is willing to accept a canonical regularization so long as Rome accepts the SSPX “as is”. Huh?

You may also listen to the Feb. 2, 2012 sermon here. Start at the 39:50 mark if you want to hear Bishop Fellay’s statement quoted above.

Share this:

In this post, I challenged the owner of CathInfo to debate my paper in which I tore apart Mr. Sean Johnson’s paper regarding the subject of active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass. I am not surprised that the owner turned down my challenge. You may read his lame response here. Perhaps the owner should refrain in the future from making ad hominem attacks and concentrate instead on making constructive counterarguments. Nevertheless, the reality is that CathInfo has deviated from the line of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre because of the owner’s defence of Bishop Williamson’s advice to the lady in Mahopac, NY regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass. Hence, CathInfo is a pseudo Archbishop Lefebvre forum.

There is another forum which claims itself faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre, so much so that it is called “Archbishop Lefebvre Forum“. This forum houses Mr. Sean Johnson (forum name is Br. Athanasius T.O.P.) as a moderator. You can guess, then, which side this forum takes on the debate regarding Bishop Williamson’s advice to the lady in Mahopac, NY. However, Br. Athanasius T.O.P. and the forum owner (forum name is Samuel), to their credit, have allowed me some leeway in debating issues of contention. They have allowed my paper to be published and have even put forth points of criticism, although these points are weak (listen to Episode 3 of Ecclesia Militans Radio where I spoke about a couple of these weak points). In addition, unlike the owner of CathInfo, they have allowed Episode 3 of Ecclesia Militans Radio to be and remain published. It is in response to this post made by Samuel regarding Episode 3 that I would like to make a few comments.

Samuel states, “A bit disappointing that no new arguments were presented in this rather long monologue, just the same old assumptions and prepackaged conclusions.” But Samuel I don’t need new arguments because neither you nor Br. Athanasius have been able to successfully counter-argue the main thesis in my paper that Bishop Williamson’s advice to the lady in Mahopac, NY runs contrary to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. The counterpoints you brought up, especially the one regarding advising someone to steal a smaller amount, are at best poor reasoning. They show the mental somersaults you perform in order to try to defend the indefensible.

Samuel states, “Unless someone can come up with some clear Church doctrine that proves what Tony is trying to present as a fact, I see no other option than to wait until the Church one day settles the matter for us.” So let me get this straight, Samuel. Until the Church finally pronounces on the goodness or badness of active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass, its goodness or badness will remain open for debate. Is that what you are saying? I think that it is precisely what you are saying. Let us take a look at this post, which you wrote on October 6, 2016 (see here for the link to the full page). You stated, “Likewise with the NOM, we can recognize and treat it as sacrilegious, but we cannot elevate this opinion (emphasis mine) to the level of a dogma.” So to you, Samuel, the goodness or badness of active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is a matter of opinion. Is this the level of certitude that the Archbishop held on this matter? No! First of all, I want to make clear that it is true that the Archbishop did not raise his position regarding active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass to the level of dogma. He knew he could not do that; I know I cannot do that. However, one does not have to hold a position as dogmatic prior to promoting that position without fear of the opposite being true. There are other degrees of certitude such as physical and moral certitude. It is with a moral certitude that the Archbishop held (as do I) that active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is bad in itself (i.e., intrinsically evil). Otherwise, he would not have had his seminarians sign a Declaration of Fidelity to the Positions of the SSPX in which they promised to never celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass and never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in it. Declarations are not written and signed as opinion pieces. But to you, Samuel, that active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is bad in itself is merely an opinion. You will wait instead until the Church makes a definitive pronouncement. How then does your position (i.e., that active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass is not bad in itself – taken from the fact that you support Bishop Williamson’s position) differ substantially from those who actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass themselves?

My friends, Samuel’s line of thinking is the type that results from straying from the clear line of Archbishop Lefebvre in defending the hazy line of Bishop Williamson. As with CathInfo, Samuel’s forum is a pseudo Archbishop Lefebvre forum. One cannot claim to be faithful to the Archbishop and deviate from his position on such a core issue as active attendance at the Novus Ordo Mass.

Samuel, the true followers of the Archbishop would most appreciate if you would change your forum’s name to “Bishop Williamson Forum”. Please and thank you!

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat; can be found in A Bishop Speaks)